The  Labor  Secretary  and 
Labor  Questions 


The  last  Congress  created  a Department  of  Labor  and 
made  its  head  a member  of  the  President's  Cabinet.  To  the 
new  department  were  transferred  the  Bureaus  of  Immigra- 
tion, Naturalization  and  Labor  Statistics,  and  it  was 
empowered  to  offer  its  good  offices  to  conciliate  and  mediate 
in  labor  disputes. 

Immediately  upon  the  election  of  President  Wilson  it 
became  publicly  apparent  that  the  Federation  of  Labor  had  a 
candidate  for  the  new  Cabinet  position  in  the  person  of 
Congressman  Wilson,  then  Chairman  of  the  House  Com- 
mittee on  Labor  and  former  Secretary -Treasurer  of  the  Mine 
Workers.  Mr.  Gompers  had  made  it  evident  in  the  editorial 
columns  of  the  “American  Federationist”  that  Mr.  Wilson’s 
selection  was  due  to  the  Federation  and  its  executive  com- 
mittee recently  gave  the  President  formal  thanks  for  this 
appointment. 

It  was  not  to  the  discredit  of  Mr.  Wilson  that  he  had 
been  a prominent  trade  unionist,  and  it  was  very  greatly  to 
his  credit  that  having  been  born  on  foreign  soil  and  worked 
as  a miner  in  the  depths  of  the  earth  he  was  invited  to 
become  the  counsellor  of  the  President.  But  we  venture  to 
suggest  that  it  is  quite  one  thing  for  a Cabinet  officer  to  sym- 
pathize with  his  former  associates  or  any  legitimate  special 
interest  with  which  he  has  been  formerly  associated  and 

[1] 


quite  another  to  either  use  or  promise  to  use  the  powers  of 
his  new  office  for  the  peculiar  advancement  of  their  interests 
or  to  procure  them  special  privileges  in  the  administration  of 
the  law.  A public  servant,  whatever  his  antecedents,  can 
neither  continue  to  be  a corporation  counsel  nor  a labor 
union  agent  without  violating  his  oath  of  office. 

The  country  has  severely  criticized  the  conduct  of  public 
men  whose  actions  have  justified  the  belief  that  they  have 
continued  to  serve  a private  client  under  the  mask  of  a public 
title.  It  is  for  this  reason  that  the  first  public  utterances  and 
actions  of  a high  official,  whose  past  has  been  peculiarly 
identified  with  a special  interest,  attract  especial  attention. 
Secretary  Wilson  crossed  the  continent  to  address  the  Ameri- 
can Federation  of  Labor  at  Seattle.  His  appearance  was 
visible  evidence  of  the  power  of  that  organization  to  create 
a Cabinet  place  and  fill  it.  His  utterances  should  enable  the 
country  to  understand  whether  he  realizes  that  he  is  the 
representative  of  all  American  labor  or  only  that  small  part 
of  it  to  the  exercise  of  whose  highly  organized  influence  he 
owes  his  elevation. 

His  first  statement,  that  his  department,  as  now  directed, 
would  co-operate  with  a trade  union  movement  in  its  effort 
to  elevate  the  standard  of  human  society,  might  well  be 
accepted  as  a proper  expression  of  willingness  to  aid  legitimate 
unionism  in  every  laudable  effort,  but  his  second  declaration 
is  that  of  an  apostle  of  the  closed  shop,  who  offers  his  office 
to  force  an  un-American  creed  upon  unwilling  converts. 

Emphasizing  his  important  duty  to  appoint  Commissioners 
of  Conciliation  in  trade  disputes,  he  said : 

“There  can  be  no  mediation,  there  can  be  no 
conciliation  between  employers  and  employes 
that  does  not  presuppose  collective  bargaining, 
and  there  cannot  be  collective  bargaining  that 
does  not  presuppose  trade  unionism.” 

[2] 


♦ f»  «** 


k 

If  this  possesses  any  logical  meaning  it  indicates  that  the 
Secretary  of  Labor  believes  that  the  first  duty  of  his  office  in 
every  trade  dispute  is  to  proselytize  for  the  benefit  of  the 
union  engaged  therein.  If  a portion,  however  large,  of  the 
employes  affected  by  a dispute  desire  to  remain  at  work, 
individually  or  by  an  agreement  that  affects  themselves  alone, 
the  logic  of  the  Secretary’s  statement  requires  that  he  shall 
use  the.  forces  of  his  Department  and  his  personal  influence, 
or  that  of  his  agents,  to  secure  accessions  to  the  ranks  of  the 
strikers,  if  they  be  trade  unionists. 

This  conclusion  is  not  left  to  this  declaration  alone.  It  is 
confirmed  by  an  express  attitude  of  mind,  by  further  circum- 
stantial statements  and  by  a reiteration  of  the  stock  phrases  of 
closed  shop  unionism  which  can  lead  the  reader  to  but  one 
judgment— that  the  Secretary  of  Labor  embraces  the  peculiar 
fallacies  of  the  Gompersian  school  and  regards  the  office 
which  he  occupies  as  a legislative  creation  for  the  furtherance 
of  closed  shop  militant  unionism. 

He  even  appears  to  regard  the  Federation  of  Labor  as 
entitled  to  his  pre-judgment  in  the  subject  matter  of  industrial 
investigations  committed  to  his  charge.  He  informs  them  in 
the  course  of  his  address  as  “a  bit  of  confidence”  his  conclu- 
sions  respecting  a corporation  which  his  agents  had  incident- 
ally examined  in  the  course  of  the  miners'  strike  now  raging 
in  the  Michigan  copper  country.  He  informs  his  hearers  that 
one  copper  mining  corporation  had  made  $200,000,000  in 
actual  profits  in  forty -two  years  on  an  investment  of 

I 4s  I 

$1,250,000,  and  intimates  that  they  underpay  their  work- 
men because  they  refused  to  accept  the  suggestions  of  his 
own  Department  or  to  meet  a committee  of  the  Western 
Federation  of  Miners  as  a self -constituted  spokesman  for  its 
own  employes.  As  a great  metropolitan  paper  has  pointed 
out,  the  Secretary  has  chosen  an  exceptional  instance  of 
successful  enterprise  and  given  it  the  appearance  of  a general 


rule.  Anticipating  the  official  report,  it  was  his  duty  in  justice 
to  both  the  mine  owners  and  the  public  to  give  the  whole 
truth.  He  flung  this  fragment  of  his  investigations  to  the 
passion  of  a prejudiced  audience,  neglecting  to  state  that  the 
entire  copper  industry  in  the  district  shows  that  only  fourteen 
mines  have  paid  back  the  money  invested,  but  that  labor 
always  got  its  wages  though  the  investor  pocketed  losses,  and 
with  the  exception  of  the  phenomenal  mine,  which  was  the 
subject  of  his  illustration,  the  others  showed  $78,300,000  of 
assessments  against  a total  of  $82,000,000  in  dividends. 

To  say  the  least,  the  spectacle  of  a Cabinet  officer 
becoming  a special  pleader  against  the  victim  of  his  investi- 
gation will  not  impress  eirher  employers  or  the  public  with 
the  impartiality  of  an  official  who  uses  carefully  selected 
excerpts  from  unpublished  reports  to  feed  industrial  prejudice. 

The  gentleman’s  philosophy  is  as  strange  as  his  figures. 
The  Vice-President  of  the  United  States  astonished  the 
country  by  declaring  to  a New  York  audience  that  legis- 
latures could  destroy  the  right  to  inherit.  Mr.  Wilson,  taking 
a more  advanced  position,  announces  that  the  legislature  is 
the  author  of  the  right  to  possess  and  that  all  title  to  property 
is  held  at  the  will  of  lawmakers,  a singular  and  astounding 
doctrine  which  the  founders  of  this  government  went  out  of 
their  way  to  condemn  by  announcing  that  men  were  pos- 
sessed of  certain  “inalienable”  rights,  among  which  were  the 
rights  of  life,  liberty  and  property.  Most  of  us  have  believed 
that  man  existed  before  government.  Mr.  Wilson’s  theory  is 
that  he  came  afterwards.  Every  form  of  civil  society  of 
which  history  has  record  is  supposed  to  have  been  created  to 
preserve  the  individual  and  his  possessions.  Our  own 
government  was  especially  devised  to  secure  him,  in  his 
person  and  the  fruits  of  his  labor,  not  only  against  his  fellows 
but  against  his  own  governmental  agencies. 

Perhaps  the  Secretary  of  Labor  has  never  learned  to 

[4] 


distinguish  between  the  power  which  society  exercises  under 
certain  conditions  to  regulate  the  use  and  alienation  of 
property  and  the  right  to  despoil  the  individual  and  take 
what  he  has  either  for  itself  or  some  individual. 

“Law,”  Mr.  Wilson  tells  his  fellow  unionists, 
“created  titles  not  primarily  for  the  welfare  of 
the  man  to  whom  it  conveys  it,  but  for  the  wel- 
fare of  the  community.  Society  has  conceived, 
whether  rightfully  or  wrongfully,  that  the  best 
method  of  promoting  the  welfare  of  society  is  to 
convey  titles  to  individuals  in  real  estate  and 
personal  effects.” 

It  would  be  interesting  to  have  the  Secretary  point  out 
any  instance,  in  the  beginning  of  this  government  or  since, 
when  it  conveyed  any  title,  real  estate  or  personal  effects,  to 
anybody,  except  when  it  happened  to  transfer  a part  of  the 
public  domain  or  dispose  of  the  second-hand  furniture  in 
some  unnecessary  office.  Historically  and  morally  the 
citizen  and  his  property  existed  before  this  government  and 
he  created  this  government  to  protect  himself  and  that  which 
was  his.  He  does  not  derive  his  title  to  his  possessions  from 
his  government.  His  rights  existed  before  he  formed  a 
government.  The  Constitution  recognizes  but  does  not 
create  his  rights.  The  gentleman  has  merely  fallen  into  the 
common  error  of  his  former  associates  whose  various  legisla- 
tive proposals,  many  of  them  introduced  by  himself,  have  so 
frequently  indicated  that  they  believe  a law-making  body 
can  do  anything.  So  that  those  who  have  the  votes  would 
only  find  it  necessary  to  exert  their  political  influence  through 
legislative  agents  and  deprive  a large  portion  of  the  public 
from  the  protection  of  themselves  and  their  property  to  which 
the  law  of  the  land  entitles  them.  In  addition  to  this  unique 
contribution  to  our  political  philosophy  the  Secretary  of  Labor 
lets  it  be  known  that  he  is  against  all  attempts  to  break  strikes, 

[5] 


which,  of  course,  indicates  his  belief  that  every  strike  is 
necessarily  right  and  every  employer  who  does  not  immedi- 
ately accede  to  any  demands  of  his  organized  employes  is 
necessarily  wrong,  a condition  of  mind  which  admirably 
qualifies  the  distinguished  Cabinet  officer  for  his  duties  as  an 
impartial  investigator. 

He  did  not,  of  course,  point  out  that  many  of  his 
employes  and  agents  are  former  labor  union  officials,  and 
that  the  Department  of  Labor  had,  for  instance,  sent  one 
Mr.  John  Moffett,  former  president  of  the  International 
Hatters’  Union,  and  their  agent  in  the  famous  Danbury 
boycort,  to  investigate  the  Indianapolis  street  car  strike. 
The  humor  of  such  a selection  would  have  been  peculiarly 
manifest  to  the  audience  he  was  addressing.  They  would 
have  been  highly  entertained  by  the  spectacle  of  Mr. 
Moffett,  with  his  well-known  views,  gravely  balancing  the 
claims  of  the  Traction  Company  and  its  employes,  and 
meditating  in  profound  impartiality  the  assertion  of  the 
company  that  it  was  entitled  to  operate  an  open  shop  and 
employ  any  citizen,  whether  or  not  he  was  the  possessor  of  a 
license  to  work  from  a local  organization  of  self-constituted 
judges  of  the  right  of  the  unorganized  portion  of  the  com- 
munity to  earn  its  living.  The  Secretary  finally  informed  his 
hearers  that  he  would  use  every  power  of  his  Department 
to  prevent  men  who  protested  against  unfair  employers  from 
being  crushed  beneath  their  power,  a laudable  and  just 
declaration.  One  looks  in  vain,  however,  through  this 
frankly  partisan  address  for  any  declaration  that  the  Depart- 
ment of  Labor  will  protect  the  unorganized  worker  against 
the  “crushing  power”  and  violent  methods  of  his  organized 
fellow. 

The  Secretary  of  Labor  sat  at  the  right  hand  of  his 
former  associate  who,  twice  convicted  of  defiant  diso- 
bedience of  judicial  authority,  still  proclaims  that  Congress 

[6] 


must  legalize  the  boycott  condemned  by  every  court  of  last 
resort  and  by  the  continuing  moral  sense  of  every  generation 
of  English-speaking  people.  Among  the  delegates  before 
him  the  Secretary  doubtless  recognized  three  familiar  faces 
of  officials  convicted  by  a farmer  jury  at  Indianapolis  of  that 
atrocious  conspiracy  to  uplift  by  dynamite,  which  shocked  our 
country  with  every  line  of  its  revelations.  The  Secretary 
finds  much  to  condemn  in  the  alleged  abuses  of  the  employer. 
But  this  representative  of  the  American  workman,  speaking 
to  an  organization,  numbering  in  its  membership  many  whose 
recent  crimes  outraged  every  sense  of  decency,  will  find  no 
word  of  condemnation  for  those  who  use  intimidation  and 
force  to  compel  the  acceptance  of  their  demands  or  who  seek 
exemption  from  the  general  laws  of  the  country,  or  who 
make  membership  in  their  associations  the  prerequisite  to  the 
earning  of  a living  for  themselves  or  those  dependent  upon 
them. 

The  first  public  utterance  of  the  Secretary  of  Labor  does 
not  inspire  confidence  in  his  capacity  for  his  position. 

Announcing  a philosophy  that  is  in  contradiction  to  the 
established  principles  of  the  people  whose  servant  he  is,  he 
presents  himself  in  the  guise  of  a partisan,  assuring  his  late 
associates  that  he  regards  his  elevation  to  high  office  as  an 
opportunity  to  further  their  special  interests.  He  reveals 
himself  to  be  not  the  servant  and  spokesman  of  the  working- 
man of  America  but  the  business  agent  in  office  of  American 
closed  shop  trade  unionism. 

WILLIAM  H.  BARR, 
President, 

National  Founders’  Association. 


Buffalo,  N.  Y . 

November  20,  1913. 


[7] 


